3.8 Article

Day to Day Use of Disinfectant Methods for Different Impression Materials among Dental Practitioners

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
Volume 32, Issue 20, Pages 113-124

Publisher

SCIENCEDOMAIN INT
DOI: 10.9734/JPRI/2020/v32i2030735

Keywords

Disinfectant; chemicals; uv chamber; impressions; dental practitioners

Ask authors/readers for more resources

One of the major problems which most dental professionals face is cross contamination and cross infection. During the fabrication of dental prosthesis, special care should be taken for every step, especially impressions as they are one of the main concern. This is because impressions are one of the most known to be the main source of infection for any potentially infectious material. To check the practice of disinfection level among the dental practitioners, a questionnaire containing 15 questions was prepared. This survey was carried between the month of June 2019 to March 2020 among the dental practitioners living in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. This survey was carried under an online platform where the participants responded to their answers. Based on their responses, the result was tabulated. We got a result of about 64% practitioners practicing protocol to disinfect impressions 65% use alginate to take impressions. 44% use 2% glutaraldehyde to disinfect impressions. 46% prefer spraying disinfectant over impression tray. Based on much research, it was reported that dental technicians were suffering from infections in hand restoratory systems, so on humanitarian basis we dentists can take better measures ourselves in avoiding cross contamination to fellow dental technicians by following proper and simple methods for disinfection of impressions before sending them to dental laboratories. To conclude awareness workshops, programs must be organised to create awareness among dentists to present cross infections.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available